|
References  |
|
|
| *references marked with an asterisk below are user-added references |
|
U.S. References |
|
|
| Add a new US reference: |
| | Reference | Relevancy | Comments | Reference | Relevancy | Comments | 5452277 Bajorek
Sep,1995 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 5412809 Tam 713/324 May,1995 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 5412585 Hamilton 713/300 May,1995 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 5396635 Fung 713/323 Mar,1995 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 5392438 Gunji
Feb,1995 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 5345347 Hopkins 360/71 Sep,1994 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 5289097 Erickson 318/561 Feb,1994 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 5283702 Tsuyuguchi 360/75 Feb,1994 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 5270992 Yasuda 369/53.43 Dec,1993 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 5245595 Yasukawa 369/30.12 Sep,1993 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 5214543 Takao 360/71 May,1993 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 5201059 Nguyen 713/323 Apr,1993 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 5197055 Hartung 369/30.32 Mar,1993 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 5167024 Smith
Nov,1992 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 5157560 Kanda 360/69 Oct,1992 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 5101311 Richmond 360/69 Mar,1992 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 5087994 Fukushima
Feb,1992 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 4984103 Nigam 360/74.1 Jan,1991 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 4980836 Carter 713/322 Dec,1990 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 4907183 Tanaka 713/340 Mar,1990 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 4819153 Graham 360/69 Apr,1989 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 4814905 Hashimoto 360/74.1 Mar,1989 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 4783706 Shoji 360/78.13 Nov,1988 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 4736263 Takahashi 360/73.03 Apr,1988 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 4717968 Painton 386/8 Jan,1988 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 4691255 Sakai 360/69 Sep,1987 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 4458273 Johnson 360/74.1 Jul,1984 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | 5246479 Gami 360/73.03 Dec,1969 |      Your vote accepted [0 after 0 votes] | | |
|
|
|
|
U.S. References |
|
|
Foreign References |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign References |
|
|
Other References |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other References |
|
|
|
|
|
References  |
|
|
Description  |
|
|
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to a power distribution scheme in a portable
computer and, more specifically to power distributed to a disk drive in a
laptop computer.
2. Prior Art
Power consumption in an electronic device is always a significant concern.
A power supply must always be designed to adequately power the device,
while at the same time take into consideration other related
characteristics thereof, such as its heat dissipation, physical size,
weight and efficiency. These characteristics are paramount in designing or
selecting an appropriate power source and become exceptionally critical
when the device the power supply is to support is a self-sufficient
portable unit, such as a laptop computer.
In many portable units, a self-supporting power source is used to provide
the power when the unit is decoupled from its main or external power
source, such as a 110 volt AC current (ordinary house current). Typically,
a battery is used to provide this independent and portable power source.
In some instances, the battery functions as an auxiliary power source to
maintain certain critical circuits active, such as preserving data held in
a volatile memory (RAM refreshment). In other instances, the battery
functions as the main power source to fully power the device.
In the area of information processing, miniaturization of processing
devices has permitted the portability of computing devices. One of the
first such portable processing devices developed was a hand-held
calculator, wherein the calculator operated from a battery power source
and could easily be carried about by the user. The battery would power all
of the functions of the calculator, and the user could readily transport
the calculator without any attachment to an external power source. The
batteries were either replaced or recharged upon being spent. The earliest
calculators simply had an on/off state which could be activated on the
calculator by a user. Full power was available during the on state, and
the power was completely shut off during the off state. Because of the
volatile nature of many early semiconductor memories in these calculators,
information stored in such volatile memories was lost when the calculator
was turned off. Subsequent calculators incorporated non-volatile memory to
solve this problem; alternatively, standby power was provided to such a
memory when the device was turned off, so that the memory retained
whatever information was stored therein. More advanced schemes were
devised to monitor various functions, so that power was removed from
various elements when those elements were not in use. Further, a time-out
scheme was later devised to put the calculator in a standby mode, such as
when a key was not depressed after a certain time period, in order to
preserve power. All of these features were devised primarily to extend the
time period the device could operate from its internal portable power
source.
When information processing technology was expanded beyond the simple
calculator to encompass personal desk top computers, additional
constraints were placed upon power consumption and power management
control schemes. Aside from additional circuitry included within these
computers that was absent from the aforesaid calculators, additional
storage devices in these computers consumed large amounts of power. These
memory devices included semiconductor devices, such as read-only memories
(ROMs), random access memories (RAMs) (which include volatile and
non-volatile memories), floppy disk drives, hard disk drives and other
magnetic media. Also, additional power was required to operate the display
unit in these computers which typically includes a viewing screen. Various
schemes were devised to monitor and control the power distribution to
these peripheral devices of a computer during on/off states.
With the advent of the portability of desk top computer systems referred to
as laptops, it became desirable to provide them with fully contained, long
lasting power sources. Because of their small physical size and light
weight, these laptops were designed to operate only for a certain number
of hours from their internal power source, i.e., typically a battery. The
additional constraints imposed on desk top computers were also placed upon
these laptops which contained additional circuitry, memory, viewing
screens and peripheral devices attached thereto. These devices necessarily
consumed additional power. In order to extend the self-sustaining time
period of these laptops while keeping the battery size and weight to a
minimum, a sophisticated power management scheme was essential to provide
power only to those circuits and devices which required such power and to
remove such power, or at least to make a given device enter a low power
consumption mode, when that device was inactive. The management scheme
also had to continually monitor the various circuits and devices in order
that power could be applied immediately to activate such circuits and
devices only when needed.
With the increasing popularity of portable laptop computers, and the
industry goal to further miniaturize laptop components while enlarging
memory size and laptop functions, power management of laptop system
components became increasingly more important and a significant problem in
the art. Table 1 below gives a listing of major laptop system components
and their power consumption in a typical portable computer as measured by
those skilled in the art.
TABLE 1
______________________________________
Breakdown of power consumption by components.
Manufacturer Power Percent
Component & Model (watts) of Total
______________________________________
Display Compaq mono- 3.5 68%
chrome lite25c
Disk Drive (105 Mbytes)
Maxtor 1.0 20%
MLX-105 III
CPU 3.3 V Intel486
0.6 12%
Memory (16 Mbytes)
Micron 0.024 0.5%
MT4CAM4AI/B1
______________________________________
At 68%, the display clearly dominates the system power consumption. The
disk drive represents 20% of the power consumption in a portable computer.
The disk thus became a clear candidate for power management because it is
a device, unlike the display, with which the user does not interact
directly. With proper management by the operating system, the disk may be
spun up when accessed and spun down during long periods of inactivity
without the user noticing much difference in performance or reliability of
the system.
The recent explosion in the portable computer market enticed disk drive
manufacturers to develop a special breed of disk drives especially
designed for the portable environment. In addition to high shock
tolerances, reduced physical volume and smaller weights, these drives
consume less energy and more importantly have a new mode of operation,
often called SLEEP mode.
SLEEP mode is when the disk is powered up, but the physical disk platter is
not spinning. The SLEEP mode is distinguishable from IDLE mode wherein the
disk is spinning but there is an absence of disk activity. ACTIVE mode is
different from the SLEEP and IDLE modes in that when the disk platter is
spinning, either the disk head is seeking or it is actively reading from
or writing onto the disk. OFF mode is when the disk consumes no energy and
performs no function except power up. Table 2 shows the power consumed by
a typical disk drive as determined by those skilled in the art. Table 3
shows the transition times between disk modes and their power consumptions
for a sample disk drive as determined by those skilled in the art.
TABLE 2
______________________________________
Power consumption of the major disk modes
for the Maxtor MXL-105 III.
Mode Power (watts)
______________________________________
OFF 0.0
SLEEP 0.025
IDLE 1.0
ACTIVE 1.95
______________________________________
TABLE 3
______________________________________
Average transition times between major
disk modes and their power consumptions for the
Maxtor MXL-105 III.
Transition Time (seconds)
Power (watts)
______________________________________
POWERUP 0.5 0.025
SPINUP 2.0 3.0
SEEK 0.009 1.95
SPINDOWN 1.0 0.025
POWERDOWN 0.5 N/A
______________________________________
A very significant portion of the energy consumed by a disk drive is spent
in preserving the angular momentum of the physical disk platter. A much
smaller fraction is spent in powering the electrical components of the
drive. By sleeping, a drive can reduce its energy consumption to near zero
by allowing the disk platter to spin down to a resting state. This is
aptly called spinning down the disk. This substantial energy reduction,
however, is not without its costs. An access to a disk while it is
sleeping incurs a delay measured in seconds as opposed to the tens of
milliseconds required for an access to a spinning disk. If the disk drive
is powered up and used with any frequency (multiple accesses), it will
have a significant impact on the length of time the computer can operate
on a single battery charge.
There is a large difference in power consumption between a disk that is
spinning and one that is not. So systems try to keep the disk spinning
only when they must. To get some idea of how the disk can affect battery
life, power consumption of a disk on a Dell.TM. 320 SLi, a Toshiba.TM.
T3300SL and a Zenith.TM. Mastersport SLe was measured by those skilled in
the art. This data is shown in Table 4 below.
TABLE 4
__________________________________________________________________________
Power measurements of three typical laptop computers.
CPU Speed
Disk Size System
Power % of Total
Machine
(MHz) (MBytes)
Disk State
Power (W)
Savings (W)
System Power
__________________________________________________________________________
Zenith 25.0 85 Idle 10.5 1.0 9.5
Mastersport Stopped
9.5
SLe 6.5 Idle 9.2 0.9 9.8
Stopped
8.3
Toshiba
25.0 120 Idle 8.1 1.2 14.8
T3300SL Stopped
6.9
6.5 Idle 7.3 1.1 15.1
Stopped
6.2
Dell 20.0 120 Idle 4.5 0.9 20.0
320SLi Stopped
3.6
2.5 Idle 3.2 1.0 31.2
Stopped
2.2
__________________________________________________________________________
All three machines were running Mach 3.0 (UX37/MK 77). The machines are
listed in the relative order of their age. At the time they were
purchased, they represented the state of the art in low power notebook
design. All three used the Intel.TM. SL Superset, which consists of the
386 SL CPU and the 82360 I/O controller. The Zenith.TM. and Toshiba.TM.
both have a backlit LCD display, while the Dell.TM. uses a "triple
super-twist nematic, reflective LCD" display. The following parameters
were varied in these machines: the speed of the CPU, and the state of the
disk. These parameters were controlled using hot-key bindings supplied by
the system manufacturers. The CPU speed was set at the fastest and slowest
speeds available; the disk was set to be either spun up or spun down.
Varying the CPU clock speed was important because the CPU can consume a
large amount of power. Reducing its clock speed when there is no work to
be done can significantly reduce the amount of power consumed. Mobile
computers are likely to be used for highly interactive software (such as
mailers, news readers, editors, etc.). So it is reasonable to expect a
large amount of CPU idle time. When the CPU clock speed is reduced, a
spinning disk will consume proportionally more of the total system power
than when clock speed is increased.
Looking at Table 4 above, it is noted that disk densities are increasing,
making it possible to carry more data. Machines are now available with
even larger disks than the systems noted above. Even though disk densities
have increased, the power used by the largest disks has stayed about the
same, around 1W for an idle spinning disk. Next, the overall system power
cost is dropping. The result is that the amount of power consumed by the
disk subsystem on these notebook computers has increased from 9% to 31%.
Improved recording densities make it possible to store more data on the
same physical device, but they do not affect the physical mass. Drives are
becoming more efficient, but cost about the same to spin up and to keep
spinning. Theoretically, machines could have smaller disks, but in
practice, higher recording densities are used to increase the overall
capacity of the storage system instead of decreasing its power
consumption. With the exception of the smallest and lightest computers,
such as the Hewlett-Packard.TM. Omnibook, the trend seems to be to carry a
larger disk with the same mass rather than a smaller disk with the same
number of bytes.
Based on Table 4, proper power management of a disk can not only improve
battery life, but can also provide a competitive advantage to one laptop
over another. For instance, battery life for the Dell.TM. 320 could be
improved 20 to 31%, the amount that could be saved if the disk were made
inactive when not needed. Put another way, a battery that lasts 5 hours
could last from 6 to 6.5 hours with proper power management. Of course,
turning the disk off can result in increased access latency. After the
disk is turned off, additional power will be consumed at start up, i.e.
each time the disk is spun up. The system must, therefore, trade off
between the power that can be saved by spinning the disk down quickly
after each access and the impact on response time (including additional
power consumed) from spinning it down and then up again too often.
Current laptop computers implement a number of power reduction techniques
to achieve longer battery life. Most, if not all, current mobile computers
use a fixed threshold to determine when to spin down the disk: if the disk
has been idle for some (predetermined) amount of time, the disk is
automatically spun down. The disk is spun up again upon the next access.
The fixed threshold is typically on the order of many seconds or minutes
to minimize the delay from on demand disk spin ups. The
Hewlett-Packard.TM. Kittyhawk C3014A spins down and up again in about 3
seconds, and its manufacturer recommends spinning it down after about 5
seconds of inactivity; most other disks take several seconds for spin
down/spin up and are recommended to spin down only after a period of
minutes. In fact, spinning the disk for just a few seconds without
accessing it can consume more power than spinning it down and up again
upon the next access. Spinning down the disk more aggressively may
therefore reduce the power consumption of the disk in exchange for higher
latency upon the first access after the disk has been spun down.
In Table 5 below, the last entry, T.sub.d is a break even point where the
cost to keep the disk spinning equals the cost in spinning it down
immediately and then up again just prior to the next access. In other
words, if the next access is likely to be more than T.sub.d seconds in the
future, the disk should be spun down and up again prior to the next
access, instead of continually spinning the disk, in order to consume less
power and preserve battery life. With future knowledge of disk activity,
one can spin down the disk immediately if the next access will take place
more than T.sub.d seconds in the future. This will result in minimal power
consumption and maximum power conservation. There are, of course,
complications beyond the simple threshold; for instance, (a) a disk
usually has multiple states that consume decreasing amounts of power, but
from which it is increasingly costly (in time and power) to return to the
active state (for example, when the disk is spinning but the disk head is
parked), (b) the time of the next access is usually unpredictable, giving
credence to a conservative spin-down approach, and (c) response time (spin
up latency) will be adversely affected. Table 5 lists the characteristics
of two disk drives for mobile computers, the Hewlett-Packard.TM. Kittyhawk
C3014A and the Quantum.TM. Go-Drive 120, including values for T.sub.d.
TABLE 5
______________________________________
Disk characteristics of the Kittyhawk C3014A
and Quantum Go-Drive 120.
Hewlett-Packard
Kittyhawk Quantum
Characteristic C3014A Go-Drive 120
_ | | |